More dollars than votes

http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com |
The announcement a few weeks ago that the Republicans will hold their 2004
presidential convention in Manhattan not surprisingly cheered local
politicians and business leaders in the city. The free-spending convergence
of delegates promises a short-term boost to a flagging economy; too bad the
massive gathering isn't on tap for this summer.

But the notion that George W. Bush will increase his chances of winning
New York's electoral votes in the election is silly. Unless the president is
landslide-bound, like Ronald Reagan in '84, the state can be relied upon to
land in the Democratic column, even if the nominee is a stiff like John
Kerry. Joe Conason, in contrast to other pundits, was correct in his Jan. 13
New York Observer column when he wrote: "[L]et's hope that Mr. Bush won't be
too disappointed when he loses New York again anyway."

But aside from the obvious symbolic value of choosing New York, the
Republican National Committee didn't really have a choice, considering the
two other contenders, Tampa and New Orleans, had zero upside for the party.
The Florida city would've put too much attention on Gov. Jeb Bush and the
speculation that he'll run for president in 2008. As for Louisiana, the
timing isn't right for a coronation in the Deep South, given the mainstream
media's conviction that all Republicans are racists.

On Jan. 7, the New York Times concluded a cheerleading editorial with
this stupid paragraph: "The Democrats, in choosing Boston, ignored the
history of their party's winning streak with presidential candidates
selected in New York. The Republicans obviously hope that if they can make
it here, they'll make it everywhere." At least the edit's headline wasn't
"It's Sinatra's World, We Just Live in It."

Conason

The Post's John Podhoretz, on the same day, made an excellent point in
speculating that one benefit of the convention is that Gov. Pataki will be
under pressure to get off his butt and start making progress on rebuilding
downtown. He writes: "Bush will not want to appear in New York with Ground
Zero still a gaping hole and ludicrous arguments still going on about
whether or not there should be an office building here that looks like a
tic-tac-toe board. We should all thank [G-d] for this pressure, because so
far there's been no indication of the governor's seriousness of purpose on
this matter."

Podhoretz ends on a ludicrous note-fantasizing that Rudy Giuliani might
replace Dick Cheney as Bush's runningmate at the convention, as if the GOP
base would countenance such a switch-but he's right on target about the
shameful dithering on the reconstruction of the financial district.

SEE NO EVIL

The New York Times, which has ceded its "paper of record" title to the
Washington Post, is in a state of denial. Flummoxed by November's midterm
elections, flabbergasted by President Bush's activist agenda and
experiencing internal strife in its own newsroom, the daily is quickly
drifting to the moribund politics of the Village Voice. Now that Frank Rich
has been dispatched to the arts pages, one can reasonably expect the Voice's
paranoid James Ridgeway to fill the former's biweekly op-ed slot.

A Times editorial on Jan. 20 demonstrated just how out-of-touch Howell
Raines and Gail Collins have become in the last year. The offensive edit,
headlined "A Stirring in the Nation," begins: "A largely missing ingredient
in the nascent debate about invading Iraq showed up on the streets of major
cities over the weekend as crowds of peaceable protesters marched in a
demand to be heard. They represented what appears to be a large segment of
the American public that remains unconvinced that the Iraqi threat warrants
the use of military force at this juncture."

That the demonstrations were organized by ANSWER, an adjunct of the
Stalinist Workers World Party, is not mentioned in the editorial. And while
it's probably true the majority of protesters were, as the Times describes,
"young college students to grayheads [isn't that ageism?] with vivid protest
memories of the 60's," an allegedly objective newspaper would've also noted
the not-insignificant anti-American sentiment at the rallies.

And Salon, in its report on the San Francisco activities, reported the
following on Monday: "Considerable creative energy went into some attacks on
the president. One large [sign] read 'Stop the Fourth Reich-Visualize
Nuremberg/Iraq.' On the other side were rows of doctored photos of all the
top-ranking Bush administration officials wearing Nazi uniforms and
officers' caps, each with an identifying caption. Bush was identified as
'The Angry Puppet' and 'Mind-controlled Slave/Pro-life Executioner.' Cheney:
'The Fuhrer, Already in His Bunker.' Powell: 'House Negro-Fakes Left, Move
Right.' Rice: 'Will Kill Africans for Oil.'"

It might not make "All the News That's Fit to Print" that the Times is
at least vaguely anti-Semitic, but is Raines throwing his weight behind
Americans who believe Bush is the reincarnation of Hitler?

TIERNEY'S SMALL VICTORY

It's rare when a New York Times news article deviates from executive editor
Howell Raines' vociferously anti-Bush agenda, but reporter John Tierney
managed just that on Jan. 19 in a piece about the president's tax-cut
proposal. Don't be surprised if Tierney leaves the Times within the six
months, weary of his stay in Raines' penalty box.

Tierney writes: "The aisles were packed at Politics and Prose, a
bookstore in one of America's more affluent neighborhoods, when a
billionaire's father arrived to promote his book calling for higher taxes on
the rich. The customers there to buy copies of 'Wealth and Our Commonwealth'
loudly applauded William H. Gates as he denounced greedy plutocrats and
declared the estate tax to be 'the finest tax conceived by man.'

"A quick survey of these book buyers from the Chevy Chase and Forest
Hills sections of Washington found precisely zero percent in favor of the
White House's proposed tax cuts... The closest encouraging word for the Bush
plan came a few doors up Connecticut Avenue at Besta Pizza, a tiny carryout
shop owned by an Egyptian immigrant, Tarek Zahow, who commutes to his
70-hour-a-week job from a much less upscale neighborhood 15 miles out of
town.

"'Of course I'm for tax cuts,' Mr. Zahow said. He said he supported the
White House's proposal, even though he realized the affluent would receive
most of the money, and favored eliminating the estate tax even if it applied
only to millionaires.

"'I'm nowhere near a million in assets, but I might be someday,' he
said."

I wonder if Zahow will be seated next to Laura Bush at next week's State
of the Union address.